I don't think you need to be worried about the behaviour of these people.
A lot of people here are rather immature and disrespectful. They take pleasure in making fun of players they don't like. That's why they have all the supid nicknames like "Mugray", "Olderer", "Nadull" and so on.
It just happens that a couple of people started bashing Ferrer. Some of them are actually good posters but for some reason have decided to hate him, and have a liking for trolling. Others are just silly people who jumped on the bandwagon.
Ferrer is usually either unknown, or quite popular because of his attitude, but he's also disliked by a lot of people because his game is often perceived as "boring". Why? Because he has no "big shots", relatively little power (because of his height mostly), and his true talents are less "flashy" than some other players.
Also, he does seem to have a "limit" above which his unusual height and lack of power become a real problem (ie,when trying to beat the Big 3).
Hence a number of people (and not just haters) think he has "no (natural) talent", or simply decide that his tennis is "not good tennis" or "not real tennis".
The idea being that working to be very fit and being able to run after every ball is not talent and not real tennis (I absolutely disagree with this, obviously). And that "natural talent" is superior to "hard work".
Then, what happens is that these people either have nothing better to do than have fun bashing Ferrer, or that they get mad at him for beating their favourite players (who, they believe, "should" have won instead of Ferrer by virtue of their supposed greater talent).
They just cannot accept that he's n°5 in the world and better ranked than their faves, so they spend hours trying to demonstrate that he's illegitimate in some way (hence the "vulture" theory), and that, for example, "a healthy Del Potro", or "Berdych if he were more consistent", etc, are actually better players than Ferrer.
Of course this is based on a total misunderstanding of the ranking system: people who are inconsistent cannot be well ranked, that's more or less the basic principle of rankings
What I do is, I simply try to engage with them whenever I feel like it, or else, I ignore them. Some of them have valuable contributions elsewhere, but a lot of them have nothing to say except stupid bashing so I put them on "ignore".